Friday, February 20, 2009

*shakes head disapprovingly*

"You shouldn't have to succeed, though, despite Washington; you should be succeeding with a hand from Washington, and that's what you're going to get now."

-President Obama at his meeting with the Nation's mayors.

This is exactly what we don't need. We as individuals, We as cities, and We as states should be expected to take care of ourselves with limited interference from the federal government. Giving someone everything they need or want creates a dependency, which is the worst type of interference.

I want to succeed DESPITE the federal government, not because of it.

The framers designed a dual sovereignty system for a reason. I refuse to be dependent upon You or your government, Mr. President.

4 comments:

CBI said...

I would probably word it more along the lines of "I wish to succeed without the hindrance of government."

There are various areas where the government provides assistance--provides "a hand"--albeit in the manner more of a public good than as an individual benefit. Military and police protection, a court system to enforce contracts ( :-) ), and certain public infrastructure are examples of these.

Legal-Right said...

Rewording duly noted.

I should have made it clear that I am responding to the Federal Government's interference in the Domestic sphere. The Federal Government is definitely needed for military protection and Local Governments are required to provide police protection. However, when the military starts interfering with local issues or the federal government begins to control local policing, that is a problem.

As for public infrastructure, my problem is with federal money being used for local infrastructure. Yes, the federal government is intended and in fact is instructed to manage interstate commerce, especially as to infrastructure, but they need to keep their grubby hands and money out of intrastate commerce and its infrastructure.

Federal Money means Federal strings which interfere with state sovereignty and individual rights. Federal involvement in local matters has become all too "in the course of normal business" since FDR.

R. Watson said...

Here's a question for you. At what point, if any, should the Federal government step in the business of the local?

Legal-Right said...

Watson: When you say local business I am assuming you mean local government business.

This is a difficult question to answer succinctly. I tend to err on the side of no federal involvement in local affairs, but that is not proper by standards of the Constitution. The primary arena I tend to allow federal intervention is interstate commerce, especially in reference to infrastructure.

There are strong arguments for federal regulation of interstate commerce in order to protect one state from the regulations of another state. There is a need for states to provide "free trade" between the states and the federal government has been given the power to keep states enacting protectionist legislation.

However, this power of congress has been warped and is now used to extend the power of the federal government into intrastate commerce that has "some" affect on interstate commerce. The test used by the Supreme Court in these matters is simply ridiculous.

I don't have the case name in front of me, but Roberts' court (I believe) recently decided a case regarding the personal growth of marijuana for medical use, as permitted by California's government. The Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to control even illegal commerce, no matter how small an affect an action may actually have on the interstate commerce of illegal drugs. Thus holding that the federal government's laws as to drugs trumped those of the state on the ground of the Commerce Clause.

I'm not one to support the use of marijuana, but I do support State rights and the idea that States are to be allowed to be experimental.

In short, I tend to believe that the Federal government exists to represent the union of states in relations with foreign countries. The feds have been given the power to tax in order to build and maintain a military for defense. Congress has been given the power to reprimand states enacting protectionist legislation.

I am being fairly simplistic, but I strongly believe that the Constitution was meant to be simplistic. Our Supreme Court has forgotten this and uses the Constitution as a tool to get their ideological way.

The primary change in the Supreme Court's behavior occurred in 1937 when FDR threatened the Supreme Court that he (with the help of Congress) would increase their size from 9 to 15 and load it with his own ideologues. In an attempt to protect the Supreme Court, a single Justice changed his vote finding Congress' intrusions in the domestic sphere were Constitutional. The end result was the destruction of the Supreme Court as it was meant to be and it has become nothing more than an addition to the political process.

I hope I haven't bored you with info you didn't even want and have answered your question... Let me know if you need clarification.